More Jobs Created Under Obama Than Bush, Nonpartisan Report Finds

Getty Images
President Obama has been called a job-killer and worse. But in his over four years in office, Obama has already presided over the net creation of more American jobs than did his predecessor, George W. Bush, in his eight in the White House. That's the conclusion of a new analysis released Tuesday by Factcheck.org, the nonpartisan voter advocacy website.

Search Jobs

The data on Obama's and Bush's job creation records are culled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the data arm of the U.S. Department of Labor. Factcheck described the comparative jobs data as follows:

By the time of Obama's second inaugural in January, the economy had added a net total of 1,208,000 jobs since he was first sworn in four years earlier, according to current figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That beats George W. Bush's eight-year total of 1,083,000. And so far, Obama is extending his lead over Bush in job creation. Counting the jobs added in February, Obama's job creation total now stands at a net gain of more than 1.5 million.

Where Have the Obama Jobs Come From?
Nonpartisan reports have credited the much-debated Obama stimulus package with the creation of jobs. According to one tally from 2012 by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus was responsible for 2 million new jobs in the last three months of 2011.

Not everything from the Factcheck report reflects well on the Obama administration. Other economic indicators suggest that times have been getting tougher under the current president. For instance, more people have turned to food stamps under Obama than under any president since President Franklin Roosevelt introduced the program in 1939.

Job Creation Still Lags
During the heady 1990s, the Clinton administration presided over the creation of roughly 20 million jobs. During both the Obama and the George W. Bush administrations, job creation has lagged when compared to that economic boom. However, Obama is only halfway done with his time in office.

But some scholars and pundits suggest that it doesn't make sense to judge presidents' performance by how many jobs are created on their watch. James Campbell, a political science professor at the State University of New York in Buffalo, noted, for instance, that any analysis must consider the "lagging" effects of economic policies from one administration into the next. And when that's the approach in assessing the economy, Campbell says, the reality is that since the 1940s "there are no presidential party differences with respect to growth, unemployment, or income inequality."

522 Comments

... since the 1940s "there are no presidential party differences with respect to growth, unemployment, or income inequality." I don't know what data he's looking at. from the 40s through GWBush, the best GOP president, Reagan, still had a poorer record of producing jobs per year (2.1%) than the worst of the Dems, Carter (2.3%)

"By the time of Obama's second inaugural in January, the economy had added a net total of 1,208,000 jobs since he was first sworn in four years earlier, according to current figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistic"

That same BLS report shows we LOST 5.1 million jobs in 2009. So how can 1.2 million jobs be considered NEW JOBS? Its still 3.9 million fewer than we had Jan 1st, 2009.'

BUSH new job growth was ACTUAL new jobs -- we had 138.2 million people working in DEC 2007. We are now approx 135 million. Again thats FEWER jobs today than 2007.

If all these jobs are actually being created WHY dont we see a sharp reduction in welfare, food stamps and unemployment? We should easily be able to cut $100s of BILLIONS from federal programs due to millions of new jobs.Problem is -- they arent really NEW JOBS -- they are jobs which were already lost under democrats in 2008-2009 and are NOT actually NEW JOBS. NEW jobs would be those jobs over and above the 138.2 MILLION jobs we had in DEC 2007.If you lose 8 million jobs which we did in 2008-2009 and then 2 million jobs come back then you did NOT create 2 million jobs -- you are still NEGATIVE 6 million jobs.Liberal math is always fuzy

THis is a slanted article. It doesnt state what type of jobs are created or a comparison of the number of jobs lost which would drastically reduce the job creation statistic. And it is including temp jobs needed to assist with disaster recovery work from hurricanes, floods, toranados... or the number of full time jobs that are now part time.. or the number of jobs that are only part time, or the salary average, are these minimum wage jobs? When you look at the other stats too, the over 600% increase in drone attacks which is just counting those in Pakistan and Yemen, not those in other places.. the number of deaths in the so called Bush wars increased dramatically too, so under Obama more death, more destruction, less economic recovery, and worthless job stats because unemployment remains very high if you count more than just those on unemployment roll calls... its more like 15% of jobless people. As my college statistics professor stated, with statistics you can prove anything and nothing at all at the same time...

Bush did not need to create jobs, he took over office with a surplus instead of a deficit, I believe unemployment was at a very low percentage. The country was working and things were good. Im not sure of what Bush could have done to stop it but some captain of industry thought it would be good for our economy to export our jobs into India, China and other places. That is what created the business failures, the bankruptcies and the housing collapse, banks collapsing and yes even more unemployment. While a president cannot tell a company how to run, he certainly could have made it tougher or given incentives to keep the jobs here. I understand companies got tax breaks to offshore outsource from the Bush camp. Bush was not a President he was a puppet, the problem is Im not sure if any of our politicians are that much different.

Actually, those who watch fox news know this statistic is a lie by omission. We still have millions fewer employed now than in 2008 and the lowest workforce participation rate EVER in the history of the statistic being tracked.

Bush was way better and creating Dead Americans than jobs. Like the 3,000 form 9/11 because he ignored Security Briefings that stated an attack was "imminant" by Bin Laden and Al Queda. And the 7,000 and counting from the 2 Wars he started.

The media has no qualms about making the GOP look bad, even if it requires deceptive editing to do it. see dkelmstra's comment from May 3rd. Also check out Media research center to see plenty of glaring examples of media bias towards Dems and against conservatives. I remember one story of a "gun-toting tea partier" that they zoomed in closely on his ar 15 so all you could see was the gun. They did that so you wouldn't see that he was in fact a black man who was well-spoken on the importance of the 2nd amendment and everyone else at the tea party rally got along well with him and the other minorities there.

You all make yourselves look bad. You preach fiscal responsibility but start trillion dollar wars, double the debt, start the first trillion deficit, give the banks 800B, expand that communist socialist program Medicare with part D, cry about big govt but then want amendments against gay marriage or want to tell women what to do with their bodies in regards to their pregnancy. Yes, I know, the GOP can do no wrong in your eyes. The govt has been too big ever since Jan 20, 2009, right?